• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.3 no.4
• /
• pp.55-72
• /
• 2000

The International Standby Practices (ISP98) has been carefully crafted for use with standby letters of credit. ISP98 is expected to become widely used for standby letters of credit commencing January 1, 1999. These new practices have been ratified and jointly published by the International Chamber of Commerce- the same organization that Provided us with the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits, UCP500. The intention behind drafting ISP98 was to consolidate common and accepted practices applying to Standby Letters of Credit and to set a worldwide standard. ISP98 gives issuing organizations a set of practices that are free from the anomalies that arise when UCP500 is applied to Standby Letters of Credit This paper focuses on ISP98 provisions that may lead to changes in forms of standby letters of credit and reimbursement agreements, that may lead to changes in standby practices, that may alert parties to issues they had not previously focused upon, or that parties may wish to limit or vary, This Paper also focuses on differences between ISP98 and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 revision, ICC Publication No. 500(UCP 500).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2012

This study primarily concerns the transfer of letter of credit. A transferable credit is a credit that clearly specifies it is 'transferable' and may be made available in whole or in part to second beneficiary by the request of the first beneficiary. the transfer of the credit is available where the seller as a middleman in intermediate trades purchases from domestic and international supplier. The purpose of this study is to examine the transfer of letter of credit in the UCP600. Having recognized the differences, the study analyzes the transfer of letter of credit under the UCP600 in comparison to those under the ISP98. The ISP98, like the UCP600, stipulates for the requirement of transfer, the number of transfer, conditions of transfer, the replacement of the name of first beneficiary.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.263-283
• /
• 2011

There are two typical international rules in issuing guarantee for obligations of party which is responsible to provide some duties such as services, construction, plants, loan repayment, etc. The two internationally recognized rules are currently ISP98 and URDG758. ISP98 was firstly introduced in 1998 for American banks to issue standby letter of credit domestic and overseas for the area where UCP does not cover. URDG was introduced first in 1991 in the name of URDG458 but it has not been widely used and therefore new URDG named URDG758 came out in 2010 to accommodate more standard guarantee practice. At the face of these two prevailing international rules, the users are sometimes confused which rule would be more suitable for their individual transaction. This led us to conduct a comparative analysis on these two rules. Our study suggests that URDG758 is more adequate for construction, ship-building and plants-supply obligations whilst ISP98 is for financial obligations. Also attentions are required when issues such as counter guarantee, governing rule, presentation period, document examination period and default statement exist. This is because ISP98 and URDG758 have different view points.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2011

Any attempt which requires banks to consider non-documentary conditions would destroy autonomy principle and increase the risks of the bank in L/C transactions. Therefore, non-documentary conditions are disregarded in the letter of credit. This provision was first introduced in UCP500, but later, ICC Position Paper No.3 added that if L/C requires documents related to non-documentary conditions, it cannot be disregarded. While the language in UCP600 is basically the same as that in UCP500, there is a difference between the two in that the former disregards the documents related to non-documentary conditions even if they are required by L/C. However, it should be remembered that international standard banking practice does not disregard all of non-documentary conditions. It recognizes the validity of some non-documentary conditions which it is not feasible to change into documentary conditions. That is, such non-documentary conditions as can be determined from an index specified in the guarantee or identified from the issuing bank's own records or their normal operations are recognized as valid in legal cases. ISP98 and UR00758 do not consider these as non-documentary conditions. The applicant should be cautious not to include non-documentary conditions in their applications.

• NEWSLETTER 전기공업
• /
• no.98-6 s.199
• /
• pp.8-19
• /
• 1998

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.103-123
• /
• 2017

If additional condition in letter of credit is used in malicious way, it affects the international trade transaction in jeopardy. Therefore, it's significant to identify whether additional conditions are malicious or ordinary in the transaction with letter of credit. In normal cases, thanks to lots of useful features as an international payment method, such as security of payment, legal protection, and versatility, a letter of credit is widely used in international trade. However, even with these advantageous features, a letter of credit is complicate and costly to use, compared to other payment methods. Furthermore, due to its principle of independence from underlying contract, a use of letter of credit creates another type of concern for proper handling and needs significant caution upon field use. At some points, malicious additional conditions are used for buyer's advantage in deal making and fraud instance in worst situation. In addition, some countries request malicious conditions against sellers as a non-tariff barrier. Therefore it's extremely important to recognize whether malicious additional condition exists in letter of credit and, if so, how to deal with it. This study delivers the information to distinguish and categorize the malicious conditions in various cases and to figure out how to deal with them for safer trade with less risk.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.175-205
• /
• 2005

One of the important issues facing current letter of credit practice is the effect of nondocumetary conditions. A nondocumentary condition is a condition contained in the credit without stating the document to be presented in compliance therewith, so nondocumentary condition must be ascertained by reference to factual matters rather than by review of a tendered document. This study attempts to examine the regulations in UCP, ISP98 and UCC on the nondocumetary conditions and the opinions on the effect of nondocumetary conditions and to analyze various cases on the effect of nondocumetary conditions. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, UCP, ISP98 and UCC stipulate that banks will deem nondocumetary conditions as not stated and will disregard then So the legal standards for nondocumetary conditions have established. Secondly, courts used to permit the effect of nondocumetary conditions on the basis of the Wichita rule, party autonomy. Thirdly, issuing banks and applicants should not attempt to put in any nondocumetary conditions in order to prevent disputes on the effect of nondocumetary conditions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.179-213
• /
• 2013

While a performance type guarantee is required as a security for non-performance risk by a seller, a payment guarantee is used as a security for non-payment risk by a buyer(or a borrower in a loan agreement). A payment guarantee is a type of independent bank guarantee, bank guarantee, bond, demand guarantee, or standby letter of credit. A guarantor accepts a credit risk of a principal which is normally a buyer in a contract for sale of goods. A payment guarantee is independent of the underlying relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. The guarantor is only empowered to examine the beneficiary's demand and determine the payment on its face to the terms of the guarantee. A payment guarantee is thus different from a suretyship. The principle of independence carries a significant advantages for a guarantor as well as for a beneficiary. While a documentary credit requires B/L, commercial invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, etc., a typical payment guarantee does not require any evidence for a seller's performance of the underlying contract other than written demand. In this respect payment guarnatee can be a more secured facility than a documentary credit. A payment guarantee normally comes into force from the issuing date and shall remain in effect until all sums guaranteed shall be paid in full by a buyer(or a borrower) or by a guarantor. Although a guarantor shall pay a demand made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee, a payment demand may be denied when it is determined to be abusive or unfair.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.